Search
Home
Saved
0
399 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista
Uploaded by WinterBunBun
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Agency
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Domingo vs. Domingo
1
of 2
AgPart 925 - Trust Digest
Albaladejo v. Phil. Refining Co.
Search document
Agency, Rule on Liability When Two Two or More Agents Appointed by the Same Principal Principal Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista G.R. No. L-32977 November 17, 1930 Facts:
• March 20, 1924: Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment in civil case No. 3514 th
•
•
wherein the appellant herein, Tan Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco Toco was the plaintiff, and t he muni of Iloilo the defendant, and the former sought to recover of the latter the value of a strip of la belonging to said plaintiff taken by by the defendant to widen a public street The judgment entitled the plaintiff to recover Php 42,966.40 representing the value o
strip of land from the municipality of Iloilo. On appeal to the SC, judgment was affir After the case was remanded to the court of origin and the judgment rendered therein become final and executory. executory. Attorney Jose Evangelista in his own behalf and as cou the administratix of Jose Ma. Arroyo’s intestate estate filed a claim in the said case f professional services rendered by him, which the court acting with the consent of th appellant widow, widow, fixed at 15% of the amount of the judgment
• At the hearing on said claim, the claimants appeared, as did also the Philippine National Ban • •
•
• •
•
which prayed that the amount of the judgment be turned over to it because the land taken ov been mortgaged to it Antero Soriano also appeared claiming the amount of the judgment as it had been assigned t and by him, in turn, assigned to Mauricio Cruz & Co., Inc After hearing, all the adverse claims on the amount of the judgment, the court ordered that t attorney’s attorney’s lien in the amount of 15% of the judgment be recorded in favor of Attorney Evan in his own behalf and counsel for the administratix of the deceased Jose Ma. Arroyo and dire the Municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the adverse claimants: the Antero Soriano, Mauricio Cruz & Co., Jose Evangelista and Jose Arroyo March 29, 1928: with the approval of the auditor of the provincial treasurer of Iloilo and wit Executive Bureau paid the late Antero Soriano the amount of Php 6,000.00 in part payment judgment mentioned above assigned to him by by Tan Tan Boon Tiong Tiong acting as attorney-in-fact of appellant herein, Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco December 18, 1928: the municipal treasurer of Iloilo deposited with the clerk of the Court o Instance of Iloilo the amount of Php 6,000.00 on account of the judgment rendered in said ci no. 3514 In pursuance of the resolution of the court below ordering that the attorney’s lien in the amo 15% of the judgment be recorded in favor of Attorney Jose Evangelista.In his own behalf an counsel for the late Jose Ma. Arroyo, the said clerk of court delivered on the same date to sa Attorney Evangelista the said amount of Php 6,000.00 Sign up vote on this title With these 2 payments of Php 6,000.00 each making a total of to Php 12,000.00 , the judgment Php 42,966.44 against the Municipality of Iloilo was reduced to Php Not useful which was Useful 30,966.40 adjudicated by said court to Maurice Cruz & Co. This appeal, then is confined to the claim o Mauricio Cruz & Co. as alleged assignee of the rights of the late Soriano by virtue of the sai judgment in payment of professional services rendered rendered by him to the said widow and her co
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
399 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista
Uploaded by WinterBunBun
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Agency
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Domingo vs. Domingo
1
of 2
AgPart 925 - Trust Digest
Albaladejo v. Phil. Refining Co.
Search document
by Tan Tan Boon Tiong, Tiong, as Attorney-in-fact for the appellant, in favor of of Attorney Antero Soriano f professional services rendered in other cases in the interests of the appellant and her coheirs, w credit which she had against the municipality of Iloilo, and such assignment was equivalent to payment of the amount of said credit to Antero Soriano for professional services
2. No. With regard to the failure of the other attorney-in-fact of the appellant, Tan Montano,
authorized by Tan Tan Toco, Toco, to consent to the deed of assignment, the latter being also authorized t the name and behalf of the principal, all her debts and the liens and encumbrances her property very fact that different letters of attorney were given to each of these two representatives shows was not the principal's intention that they should act jointly in order to make their acts valid.
From the syllabus:
When two letters of attorney are issued simultaneously to two different attorneys-in-fact, but co the same powers shows that it was not the principal’s intention that they should act jointly in or make their acts valid; the separate act of one of the attorney-in-fact, even when not consented t other attorney-in-fact, isa valid and binding on the principal, especially the principal did not on repudiate the act done, but continued to retain the said attorney-in-fact.
By virtue whereof, and finding finding no error in the judgment appealed appealed from, the same is affirmed in its ent with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Sign up to vote on this title
Useful
Not useful
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
